note that cotton is rarely used for food (the oil sometimes) so is rather off-topic (unless there is a market for organic cotton clothing)

Yes, it was connected to the multiple references to the thread in which the GMO impacts in India were discussed. The references were not linked so I provided the gist of the misrepresentation I was supposedly nit-picking for clarification.

I have to admit I was not following this thread closely (thus no quotes for reference) so my only point was that there is topic drift from the original topic of whether organic is healthier or not. I suppose the psychological aspects could be included in health but that seems a bit of a stretch.

Not really a topic-drift as we are still talking about whether or not organics are healthier .... for the individual, for the environment, for societies, etc, .... and this naturally would evolve to include a discussion of GMO's as Vandana Shiva has shown the catastrophe they've created for Indian farmers (as just one example). Organics, by definition, cannot contain GMO's. The question of whether organics are healthier brings up a lot of questions re: green revolution, neo-liberalism, agri-business, corporate take-over, globalization, etc. The question of whether organics are healthier will naturally evolve into a wider discussion of these issues.

Not sure what psychological aspects you're referring to ..... unless you mean the suffering endured by small farmers who have lost their livelihoods to corporate take-overs .... and the loss of life which was surely accompanied by some sort of psychological strife. We are taliking about suicide which is usually caused by psychological conflict. One's psychological well-being is usually included in the concept of health and is not much of a stretch especially when it is about survival. We haven't talked about psychology as yet, but the issue could be included in this discussion. Survival, suicide, and psychological health are very much related.

Yes, it was connected to the multiple references to the thread in which the GMO impacts in India were discussed. The references were not linked so I provided the gist of the misrepresentation I was supposedly nit-picking for clarification.

I have to admit I was not following this thread closely (thus no quotes for reference) so my only point was that there is topic drift from the original topic of whether organic is healthier or not. I suppose the psychological aspects could be included in health but that seems a bit of a stretch.

Not really a topic-drift as we are still talking about whether or not organics are healthier .... for the individual, for the environment, for societies, etc, .... and this naturally would evolve to include a discussion of GMO's as Vandana Shiva has shown the catastrophe they've created for Indian farmers (as just one example).

So powerful of a catastrophe, it caused suicides 5 years before any were ever approved, much less planted or even became popular with the farmers, which took a couple of more years. Why the Indian farmers choose to change crops that they had to see was literally killing their peers would seem to be a mystery since there are supposedly no advantages to GMO crops. It must be a governmental and corporate conspiracy to kill off farmers since Farm Aid saved all of their farms.

Quote:

Survival, suicide, and psychological health are very much related.

Not to mention, assumptions, suspicions, misrepresentations, and even lies seem to be key aspects of the opposition to new technology.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

quote="Wayne Stollings Yes, it was connected to the multiple references to the thread in which the GMO impacts in India were discussed. The references were not linked so I provided the gist of the misrepresentation I was supposedly nit-picking for clarification.

Quote:

I have to admit I was not following this thread closely (thus no quotes for reference) so my only point was that there is topic drift from the original topic of whether organic is healthier or not. I suppose the psychological aspects could be included in health but that seems a bit of a stretch.

Not really a topic-drift as we are still talking about whether or not organics are healthier .... for the individual, for the environment, for societies, etc, .... and this naturally would evolve to include a discussion of GMO's as Vandana Shiva has shown the catastrophe they've created for Indian farmers (as just one example).[/quote]

So powerful of a catastrophe, it caused suicides 5 years before any were ever approved, much less planted or even became popular with the farmers, which took a couple of more years. Why the Indian farmers choose to change crops that they had to see was literally killing their peers would seem to be a mystery since there are supposedly no advantages to GMO crops. It must be a governmental and corporate conspiracy to kill off farmers since Farm Aid saved all of their farms.

Quote:

Survival, suicide, and psychological health are very much related.

Not to mention, assumptions, suspicions, misrepresentations, and even lies seem to be key aspects of the opposition to new technology.[/quote]

1997 witnessed the first emergence of farm suicides in India. A rapid increase in indebtedness, was at the root of farmers taking their lives. Debt is a reflection of a negative economy, a loosing economy. Two factors have transformed the positive economy of agriculture into a negative economy for peasants - the rising costs of production and the falling prices of farm commodities. Both these factors are rooted in the policies of trade liberalization and corporate globalisation.

In 1998, the World Bank's structural adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto, and Syngenta. The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds which needed fertilizers and pesticides and could not be saved.

As seed saving is prevented by patents as well as by the engineering of seeds with non-renewable traits, seed has to be bought for every planting season by poor peasants. A free resource available on farms became a commodity which farmers were forced to buy every year. This increases poverty and leads to indebtedness.

As debts increase and become unpayable, farmers are compelled to sell kidneys or even commit suicide. More than 25,000 peasants in India have taken their lives since 1997 when the practice of seed saving was transformed under globalisation pressures and multinational seed corporations started to take control of the seed supply.

The District of Warangal in Andhra Pradesh used to grow diverse legumes, millets, and oilseeds. Seed monopolies created crop monocultures of cotton, leading to disappearance of millions of products of nature's evolution and farmer's breeding.

When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in India in 2002, the farmers lost Rs. 1 billion due to crop failure.

In the state of Bihar, when farm saved corn seed was displaced by Monsanto's hybrid corn, the entire crop failed creating Rs. 4 billion losses and increased poverty for already desperately poor farmers. Poor peasants of the South cannot survive seed monopolies.

And the crisis of suicides shows how the survival of small farmers is incompatible with the seed monopolies of global corporations.

The government is desperate to delink farm suicides from economic processes linked to globalisation such as rise in indebtedness and increased frequency of crop failure due to higher ecologic vulnerability arising from climate change and drought and higher economic risks due to introduction of untested, unadopted seeds.

However, under globalisation, the farmer is loosing her / his social, cultural, economic identity as a producer. A farmer is now a "consumer" of costly seeds and costly chemicals sold by powerful global corporations through powerful landlords and money lenders locally.

This combination is leading to corporate feudalism, the most inhumane, brutal and exploitative convergence of global corporate capitalism and local feudalism, in the face of which the farmer as an individual victim feels helpless.

It is necessary to change our paradigms of food production. Feeding humanity should not depend on the extinction of farmers and extinction of species. Another agriculture is possible and necessary - an agriculture that protects farmers livelihoods, the earth and its biodiversity and public health.

When India's seed economy was forced by the World Bank to become globalized in the late 1990s, economic conditions within the nation's agricultural sector almost immediately took a nosedive for the worst. Much of the common Indian seed stock turned from saveable heirloom varieties to patented, genetically-modified (GM) varieties that expire after a single use and require the application of expensive and cumbersome pesticides in order to grow, which plunged many Indian farmers into abject poverty. And nearly 25 years later, the devastating effects of this corporate takeover of Indian agriculture has resulted in countless suicides, 200,000 of which have occurred just in the past ten years.

The World Bank, for example, set the stage for the hijacking of India's agricultural system back in the late 1990s when it forced the country to globalize its seed economy. More recently, Monsanto and other key players in biotechnology have repeatedly pushed Indian farmers to adopt GMO technologies by lying to them about its alleged, but unfounded, agricultural benefits (http://www.naturalnews.com/030913_Monsa ... cides.html).

... when you have nearly 200 000 among farmers, it makes sense to seek broad common factors within that group. As Dr. Nagaraj has repeatedly pointed out, the suicides appear concentrated in regions of high commercialisation of agriculture and very high peasant debt. Cash crop farmers seemed far more vulnerable to suicide than those growing food crops. .... the shifting of millions from food crop to cash crop cultivation with all its risks; the corporate hijack of every major sector of agriculture including, and especially, seed;

quote="Wayne Stollings] Not really a topic-drift as we are still talking about whether or not organics are healthier .... for the individual, for the environment, for societies, etc, .... and this naturally would evolve to include a discussion of GMO's as Vandana Shiva has shown the catastrophe they've created for Indian farmers (as just one example).

So powerful of a catastrophe, it caused suicides 5 years before any were ever approved, much less planted or even became popular with the farmers, which took a couple of more years. Why the Indian farmers choose to change crops that they had to see was literally killing their peers would seem to be a mystery since there are supposedly no advantages to GMO crops. It must be a governmental and corporate conspiracy to kill off farmers since Farm Aid saved all of their farms.

Quote:

Quote:

Survival, suicide, and psychological health are very much related.

Not to mention, assumptions, suspicions, misrepresentations, and even lies seem to be key aspects of the opposition to new technology.

Quote:

http://www.countercurrents.org/glo-shiva050404.htm

1997 witnessed the first emergence of farm suicides in India. A rapid increase in indebtedness, was at the root of farmers taking their lives. Debt is a reflection of a negative economy, a loosing economy. Two factors have transformed the positive economy of agriculture into a negative economy for peasants - the rising costs of production and the falling prices of farm commodities. Both these factors are rooted in the policies of trade liberalization and corporate globalisation.

In 1998, the World Bank's structural adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto, and Syngenta. The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds which needed fertilizers and pesticides and could not be saved.

As seed saving is prevented by patents as well as by the engineering of seeds with non-renewable traits, seed has to be bought for every planting season by poor peasants. A free resource available on farms became a commodity which farmers were forced to buy every year. This increases poverty and leads to indebtedness.

The patent protected seeds were not approved for use until 2002 and were not immediately planted even then.

Quote:

As debts increase and become unpayable, farmers are compelled to sell kidneys or even commit suicide. More than 25,000 peasants in India have taken their lives since 1997 when the practice of seed saving was transformed under globalisation pressures and multinational seed corporations started to take control of the seed supply.

Which is clearly untrue since the reference itself states the court ruling was not until 1998.

Quote:

The District of Warangal in Andhra Pradesh used to grow diverse legumes, millets, and oilseeds. Seed monopolies created crop monocultures of cotton, leading to disappearance of millions of products of nature's evolution and farmer's breeding.

It seems the farmers made the choice maybe based on the increased profit from cotton.

Quote:

When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in India in 2002, the farmers lost Rs. 1 billion due to crop failure.

But not due to the Bt cotton though. The weather was not good, but the 100,000 acres of Bt cotton palnted showed an overall increase in yield of 60% over the non-Bt cotton crop.

Quote:

In the state of Bihar, when farm saved corn seed was displaced by Monsanto's hybrid corn, the entire crop failed creating Rs. 4 billion losses and increased poverty for already desperately poor farmers. Poor peasants of the South cannot survive seed monopolies.

Assuming that somehow the non-hybrid corn would not have failed?

Quote:

And the crisis of suicides shows how the survival of small farmers is incompatible with the seed monopolies of global corporations.

Actually it shows the need for a crop insurance program and a means to attain more reasonable loans.

Quote:

The government is desperate to delink farm suicides from economic processes linked to globalisation such as rise in indebtedness and increased frequency of crop failure due to higher ecologic vulnerability arising from climate change and drought and higher economic risks due to introduction of untested, unadopted seeds.

It seems some are more desparate to try to link the problems with globalization.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

When India's seed economy was forced by the World Bank to become globalized in the late 1990s, economic conditions within the nation's agricultural sector almost immediately took a nosedive for the worst. Much of the common Indian seed stock turned from saveable heirloom varieties to patented, genetically-modified (GM) varieties that expire after a single use and require the application of expensive and cumbersome pesticides in order to grow, which plunged many Indian farmers into abject poverty. And nearly 25 years later, the devastating effects of this corporate takeover of Indian agriculture has resulted in countless suicides, 200,000 of which have occurred just in the past ten years.

This after you posted the fact of the ONLY GMO approved for use in India was not planted until 2002 and then in a limited area? Too bad the truth takes such a second place to the opposition to GMOs.

When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in India in 2002,

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The World Bank, for example, set the stage for the hijacking of India's agricultural system back in the late 1990s when it forced the country to globalize its seed economy. More recently, Monsanto and other key players in biotechnology have repeatedly pushed Indian farmers to adopt GMO technologies by lying to them about its alleged, but unfounded, agricultural benefits (http://www.naturalnews.com/030913_Monsa ... cides.html).

Like the 60% increase reported over non-Bt cotton the first year of planting where there were significant weather issues? Wait, that is documented.

Yes, it was connected to the multiple references to the thread in which the GMO impacts in India were discussed. The references were not linked so I provided the gist of the misrepresentation I was supposedly nit-picking for clarification.

I have to admit I was not following this thread closely (thus no quotes for reference) so my only point was that there is topic drift from the original topic of whether organic is healthier or not. I suppose the psychological aspects could be included in health but that seems a bit of a stretch.[/quote]

Not really a topic-drift as we are still talking about whether or not organics are healthier .... for the individual, for the environment, for societies, etc, .... and this naturally would evolve to include a discussion of GMO's as Vandana Shiva has shown the catastrophe they've created for Indian farmers (as just one example).[/quote]

So powerful of a catastrophe, it caused suicides 5 years before any were ever approved, much less planted or even became popular with the farmers, which took a couple of more years.

The suicides were not only a result of GMO cotton ..... which is why the suicides began before the introduction of GMO technology, but were certainly exacerbated by them. There are a number of reasons for the suicides, including gmos's, and also including multi-national agri-business getting its fingers into the Indian pie.

Why the Indian farmers choose to change crops that they had to see was literally killing their peers would seem to be a mystery since there are supposedly no advantages to GMO crops. It must be a governmental and corporate conspiracy to kill off farmers since Farm Aid saved all of their farms.

There was a perception of the advantage of GMO cotton in India just as there is a perception of advantages of GMO corn in America. Farmers in both continents bought the hope. Who wouldn't?

Quote:

Survival, suicide, and psychological health are very much related.

Not to mention, assumptions, suspicions, misrepresentations, and even lies seem to be key aspects of the opposition to new technology.[/quote]

We can talk about assumptions, etc .... but this does not negate the fact that suicide and phsychological health are intimately related. Suspicion is a good thing and if you are accusing the "opposition" of lies, you'd probably best get specific.

New technology is the story of our times. It is heralded as the life-saver. It's the hero we've all been looking for. But, as much as I would like a good hero to step in and save us all, it isn't going to. GMO's have been largely untested and yet, they are beginning to show their weakness.

Not really a topic-drift as we are still talking about whether or not organics are healthier .... for the individual, for the environment, for societies, etc, .... and this naturally would evolve to include a discussion of GMO's as Vandana Shiva has shown the catastrophe they've created for Indian farmers (as just one example).

So powerful of a catastrophe, it caused suicides 5 years before any were ever approved, much less planted or even became popular with the farmers, which took a couple of more years.

The suicides were not only a result of GMO cotton ..... which is why the suicides began before the introduction of GMO technology, but were certainly exacerbated by them. There are a number of reasons for the suicides, including gmos's, and also including multi-national agri-business getting its fingers into the Indian pie.

Yet the sources you have quoted clearly place the blame on the GMO seed. If this had been a case of similar misrepresentation you would have been leaping into the air pointing out the "dishonesty" of the corporations, but it is not so you seem to try to ignore it after it is pointed out multiple times.

Quote:

Quote:

Why the Indian farmers choose to change crops that they had to see was literally killing their peers would seem to be a mystery since there are supposedly no advantages to GMO crops. It must be a governmental and corporate conspiracy to kill off farmers since Farm Aid saved all of their farms.

There was a perception of the advantage of GMO cotton in India just as there is a perception of advantages of GMO corn in America. Farmers in both continents bought the hope. Who wouldn't?

Yes, one cannot argue with facts very effectively and the facts are pretty clear to even those farmers. The farms raising GMO crops show on average a higher yield than similar farms growing conventional crops. Higher yield is better in the eyes of a farmer trying to make a living.

Quote:

Quote:

Survival, suicide, and psychological health are very much related.

Not to mention, assumptions, suspicions, misrepresentations, and even lies seem to be key aspects of the opposition to new technology.

Quote:

We can talk about assumptions, etc .... but this does not negate the fact that suicide and phsychological health are intimately related. Suspicion is a good thing and if you are accusing the "opposition" of lies, you'd probably best get specific.

More specific than the lies about the link to suicides years before any of the crops were ever approved to be planted? How much more specific do I need to get? More specific than the fact the few farmers planting GMO crops the first year showed on average a significantly higher yield than the farmers planting a conventional crop in a year with very bad weather conditions that severely impacted production? Thus, the GMO crops helped rather than harmed as was claimed.

Quote:

New technology is the story of our times. It is heralded as the life-saver. It's the hero we've all been looking for. But, as much as I would like a good hero to step in and save us all, it isn't going to. GMO's have been largely untested and yet, they are beginning to show their weakness.

What weakness? That people can lie about the products to support their fears? That they can assume more testing will somehow prove there are problems all while trying to disrupt that very same testing?

The sources you have used so far have either shown to be misrepresenting the facts or repeating the misrepresentations of others. Either way they hold little credibility as references.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

New technology is the story of our times. It is heralded as the life-saver. It's the hero we've all been looking for. But, as much as I would like a good hero to step in and save us all, it isn't going to. GMO's have been largely untested and yet, they are beginning to show their weakness.

1973Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen combine their research to create the first successful recombinant DNA organism. Almost 40 years since the first modern GMO

1982The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves the first genetically engineered drug, Genentech's Humulin, a form of human insulin produced by bacteria. This is the first consumer product developed through modern bioengineering. 30 years since the first GMO product was approved.

1986The first field tests of genetically engineered plants (tobacco) are conducted in Belgium. 26 years since the first GMO plant was tested

1987The first field tests of genetically engineered crops (tobacco and tomato) are conducted in the United States. 25 years since the first GMO crops were tested.

1992Calgene's Favr Savr tomato, engineered to remain firm for a longer period of time, is approved for commercial production by the US Department of Agriculture. 20 years since the first GMO food crop was approved.

It seems the "largely untested" claim is lacking as there are ~40 years of data on GMOs down to 20 years of data on human consumption of GMOs where are the "weaknesses" in this data exactly? No assumptions, wishes, or hopes, but clear scientific research showing the weakness.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Not really a topic-drift as we are still talking about whether or not organics are healthier .... for the individual, for the environment, for societies, etc, .... and this naturally would evolve to include a discussion of GMO's as Vandana Shiva has shown the catastrophe they've created for Indian farmers (as just one example).

So powerful of a catastrophe, it caused suicides 5 years before any were ever approved, much less planted or even became popular with the farmers, which took a couple of more years.

The suicides were not only a result of GMO cotton ..... which is why the suicides began before the introduction of GMO technology, but were certainly exacerbated by them. There are a number of reasons for the suicides, including gmos's, and also including multi-national agri-business getting its fingers into the Indian pie.

Yet the sources you have quoted clearly place the blame on the GMO seed.

The sources? I am using the info that Vendana Shiva has offered .... and she describes GMO's as well as a list of other factors ... mostly the globalization of food as a commodity which is enhanced and exacerbated by the GMO industry being largely tied to agri-business. It's a complicated issue and one that GMO's is largely tied to. But she lists a number of other factors. You would know this because you listened to the youtube I provided, right?

Vendana Shiva has explicitely explained the reasons for the suicides. GMO's are one very prominent reason for the stress on Indian farmers. She has very clearly outlined the stresses and has explained the role of GMO technology as a player in in the demise of farming in India. GMO technology is a player in a much larger business. This is where food sovereignty comes into play.

Quote:

If this had been a case of similar misrepresentation you would have been leaping into the air pointing out the "dishonesty" of the corporations, but it is not so you seem to try to ignore it after it is pointed out multiple times.

GMO seed is a player in the take-over of smaller farm holdings to the interets of larger agri-business. What?

Quote:

Why the Indian farmers choose to change crops that they had to see was literally killing their peers would seem to be a mystery since there are supposedly no advantages to GMO crops. It must be a governmental and corporate conspiracy to kill off farmers since Farm Aid saved all of their farms.

it's a complicated issue and there are several reasons why Indian farmers are suffering from corporate take-over. There was a perception of the advantage of GMO cotton in India just as there is a perception of advantages of GMO corn in America. Farmers in both continents bought the hope. Who wouldn't?

Quote:

Yes, one cannot argue with facts very effectively and the facts are pretty clear to even those farmers.

Of course. It all made sense at one time.

Quote:

The farms raising GMO crops show on average a higher yield than similar farms growing conventional crops. Higher yield is better in the eyes of a farmer trying to make a living.

Yes Wayne. Why wouldn't they adopt this technology. It was so promising and everyone is attracted by the lure of more profit. But when the people making promises turn into the people who own you .... and nature itself .... this becomes a problem. Survival, suicide, and psychological health are very much related.

Quote:

Not to mention, assumptions, suspicions, misrepresentations, and even lies seem to be key aspects of the opposition to new technology.

We can talk about assumptions, etc .... but this does not negate the fact that suicide and phsychological health are intimately related. Suspicion is a good thing and if you are accusing the "opposition" of lies, you'd probably best get specific.

Quote:

More specific than the lies about the link to suicides years before any of the crops were ever approved to be planted?

The suicides increased once the technology was introduced, yet there was already a corporate take-over before 2002. Shiva spoke to it.

You linked the indian suicides to the specifics of GMO's, while GMO's were just a part of a larger process. You made an assumption. Vendana Shiva has been on the forefront and witnessed what is happenong to her people as a result of globalization, which includes GMO's. The multinationals are gobbling up this technology as they show terrific profit.

Quote:

How much more specific do I need to get? More specific than the fact the few farmers planting GMO crops the first year showed on average a significantly higher yield than the farmers planting a conventional crop in a year with very bad weather conditions that severely impacted production? Thus, the GMO crops helped rather than harmed as was claimed

.

You need to think longer term. We all do. Let's be more specific. The first year showed higher yield as did the second and third and fourth and fifth .... And then what? This is an experiment .... don't forget, and we are the guinea pigs ... as is our land.

New technology is the story of our times. It is heralded as the life-saver. It's the hero we've all been looking for. But, as much as I would like a good hero to step in and save us all, it isn't going to. GMO's have been largely untested and yet, they are beginning to show their weakness.

Quote:

What weakness? That people can lie about the products to support their fears? That they can assume more testing will somehow prove there are problems all while trying to disrupt that very same testing?

What in the world are you talking about? What "more" testing? Get clear and then state whatever it is you would like to state. There has been testing on GMO's ..... mostly by the GMO companies themselves. Not very objective by all and any accounts. There has not been independent testing ..... The GMO companies have done their own. Not good. The reecent French study is the first and the results have shown some damning results .... Of course these have been contested by the industry .....

I'm sure you argue so vehemently because your intentions are good. So are mine.

Quote:

The sources you have used so far have either shown to be misrepresenting the facts or repeating the misrepresentations of others. Either way they hold little credibility as references.

That is fine if you can offer something yourself, which you have not!Prove it rather than offering one or two line rebuttals. My main source has been Vendana Shiva? I have no problem with her.You haven't even used any! Waht are your sources?What misrepresentation? Be specific. And make sure you are not misunderstanding or misconstruing.Little credibility? What's yours?

You haven't even replied to some of my posts yet ..... that's okay as I have not responded to some of yours.If you have some goods ..... show us!

New technology is the story of our times. It is heralded as the life-saver. It's the hero we've all been looking for. But, as much as I would like a good hero to step in and save us all, it isn't going to. GMO's have been largely untested and yet, they are beginning to show their weakness.

1973Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen combine their research to create the first successful recombinant DNA organism. Almost 40 years since the first modern GMO

1982The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves the first genetically engineered drug, Genentech's Humulin, a form of human insulin produced by bacteria. This is the first consumer product developed through modern bioengineering. 30 years since the first GMO product was approved.

1986The first field tests of genetically engineered plants (tobacco) are conducted in Belgium. 26 years since the first GMO plant was tested

1987The first field tests of genetically engineered crops (tobacco and tomato) are conducted in the United States. 25 years since the first GMO crops were tested.

1992Calgene's Favr Savr tomato, engineered to remain firm for a longer period of time, is approved for commercial production by the US Department of Agriculture. 20 years since the first GMO food crop was approved.

It seems the "largely untested" claim is lacking as there are ~40 years of data on GMOs down to 20 years of data on human consumption of GMOs where are the "weaknesses" in this data exactly? No assumptions, wishes, or hopes, but clear scientific research showing the weakness.

And now they are commercially available and sold without anyone having to know because they are not labelled. They are now grown and sold to farmers as a package deal. What's the package?

The suicides were not only a result of GMO cotton ..... which is why the suicides began before the introduction of GMO technology, but were certainly exacerbated by them. There are a number of reasons for the suicides, including gmos's, and also including multi-national agri-business getting its fingers into the Indian pie.

Quote:

Yet the sources you have quoted clearly place the blame on the GMO seed.

The sources? I am using the info that Vendana Shiva has offered .... and she describes GMO's as well as a list of other factors ... mostly the globalization of food as a commodity which is enhanced and exacerbated by the GMO industry being largely tied to agri-business. It's a complicated issue and one that GMO's is largely tied to. But she lists a number of other factors. You would know this because you listened to the youtube I provided, right?

That would be one of the sources you quoted, but there are others.

Quote:

Vendana Shiva has explicitely explained the reasons for the suicides. GMO's are one very prominent reason for the stress on Indian farmers. She has very clearly outlined the stresses and has explained the role of GMO technology as a player in in the demise of farming in India. GMO technology is a player in a much larger business. This is where food sovereignty comes into play.

No, she does not. She palces the blame without real evicence because the facts she presents are intended to imply a cause and effect while ignoring the effect was years prior to the supposed cause. She provides no study information which breaks down any causes but assumes them.

Quote:

Quote:

If this had been a case of similar misrepresentation you would have been leaping into the air pointing out the "dishonesty" of the corporations, but it is not so you seem to try to ignore it after it is pointed out multiple times.

GMO seed is a player in the take-over of smaller farm holdings to the interets of larger agri-business. What?

How can that be the case when the "evidence" presented is prior to the GMO seed being available?

Quote:

Quote:

Why the Indian farmers choose to change crops that they had to see was literally killing their peers would seem to be a mystery since there are supposedly no advantages to GMO crops. It must be a governmental and corporate conspiracy to kill off farmers since Farm Aid saved all of their farms.

it's a complicated issue and there are several reasons why Indian farmers are suffering from corporate take-over. There was a perception of the advantage of GMO cotton in India just as there is a perception of advantages of GMO corn in America. Farmers in both continents bought the hope. Who wouldn't?

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, one cannot argue with facts very effectively and the facts are pretty clear to even those farmers.

Of course. It all made sense at one time.

It still does or it would not continue. The yeilds are increased in relation to the costs and thus the profit increases.

Quote:

Quote:

The farms raising GMO crops show on average a higher yield than similar farms growing conventional crops. Higher yield is better in the eyes of a farmer trying to make a living.

Yes Wayne. Why wouldn't they adopt this technology. It was so promising and everyone is attracted by the lure of more profit. But when the people making promises turn into the people who own you .... and nature itself .... this becomes a problem. Survival, suicide, and psychological health are very much related.

This makes no sense what so ever. If planting conventional seed will not allow survival but the increased yield might, how is that a "bad" thing in reality? The Indian farmers are owned by tthe very same people who owned them prior to the introduction of GMO seeds and that has nothing to do with multinationals or GMOs

Quote:

Quote:

Not to mention, assumptions, suspicions, misrepresentations, and even lies seem to be key aspects of the opposition to new technology.

We can talk about assumptions, etc .... but this does not negate the fact that suicide and phsychological health are intimately related. Suspicion is a good thing and if you are accusing the "opposition" of lies, you'd probably best get specific.

Quote:

Quote:

More specific than the lies about the link to suicides years before any of the crops were ever approved to be planted?

The suicides increased once the technology was introduced, yet there was already a corporate take-over before 2002. Shiva spoke to it.

BS without evidence. What corporate take over would that be without a means to do so? Give the specifics on the suicides that supposedly increased due solely to GMO and not because untrained farmers tried to jump on the wagon to make money.

Quote:

You linked the indian suicides to the specifics of GMO's, while GMO's were just a part of a larger process. You made an assumption. Vendana Shiva has been on the forefront and witnessed what is happenong to her people as a result of globalization, which includes GMO's. The multinationals are gobbling up this technology as they show terrific profit.

That is what your sourse have stated. If you have quoted false claims it is not my fault.

Quote:

Quote:

How much more specific do I need to get? More specific than the fact the few farmers planting GMO crops the first year showed on average a significantly higher yield than the farmers planting a conventional crop in a year with very bad weather conditions that severely impacted production? Thus, the GMO crops helped rather than harmed as was claimed

.

You need to think longer term. We all do. Let's be more specific. The first year showed higher yield as did the second and third and fourth and fifth .... And then what? This is an experiment .... don't forget, and we are the guinea pigs ... as is our land.

Then show us where the problem are. You are assuming they may be a problem some where but there is no evidence presented to support it. If yields increase more than costs the "take over" claim is not valid.

Quote:

Quote:

New technology is the story of our times. It is heralded as the life-saver. It's the hero we've all been looking for. But, as much as I would like a good hero to step in and save us all, it isn't going to. GMO's have been largely untested and yet, they are beginning to show their weakness.

Quote:

What weakness? That people can lie about the products to support their fears? That they can assume more testing will somehow prove there are problems all while trying to disrupt that very same testing?

What in the world are you talking about? What "more" testing?

You stated the GMOs were "largely untested" and to correct that issue would require more testing, which is ongoing. The problem is the opponents such as yourself try to disrupt those tests.

Quote:

Get clear and then state whatever it is you would like to state. There has been testing on GMO's ..... mostly by the GMO companies themselves. Not very objective by all and any accounts. There has not been independent testing ..... The GMO companies have done their own. Not good. The reecent French study is the first and the results have shown some damning results .... Of course these have been contested by the industry .....

Maybe you should follow your own advice. What did you mean when you stated the GMOs were "largely untested" if this was not the case?

Quote:

I'm sure you argue so vehemently because your intentions are good. So are mine.

My intentions are to seek the truth not the agenda you seem to seek.

Quote:

Quote:

The sources you have used so far have either shown to be misrepresenting the facts or repeating the misrepresentations of others. Either way they hold little credibility as references.

That is fine if you can offer something yourself, which you have not!

Actually, I have. I provided the links to the timeframes, I provided links to the production yields, and other points. Did you miss them?

Quote:

Prove it rather than offering one or two line rebuttals.

I have repeatedly.

Quote:

My main source has been Vendana Shiva? I have no problem with her.

She has misrepresented the truth so her credibility is nil and given your support of that misrepresentation yours follows.

Quote:

You haven't even used any! Waht are your sources?

They are listed with the links to them, either in this thread or the other.

Quote:

What misrepresentation? Be specific. And make sure you are not misunderstanding or misconstruing.

I have given them repeatedly. If you have not understood them by this point I doubt if you will ever do so.

Quote:

Little credibility? What's yours?

Much more than yours at this point.

Quote:

You haven't even replied to some of my posts yet ..... that's okay as I have not responded to some of yours.

To which have I not responded?

Quote:

If you have some goods ..... show us!

I have and you have seemingly ignored them completely.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein